|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are these people complete prats?
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thing is, Boehner is caught between a rock and hard place. He doesn't appear to want a default, but wants to keep his job - and land a better one - so needs to keep both the Tea Party and the moderates sweet. Ain't going to happen. But if Boehner goes, the Republicans will select the next speaker and some of the other candidates, like Cruz, are likely to be even less co-operative. As well as having no knowledge of basic economics - defaulting to show that you're serious about tackling the deficit and then prioritizing the bills you're going to pay isn't going to work. It doesn't work if you're a householder! It just screws your credit record.
First off, Ted Cruz is not a potential candidate for Speaker of the House for the simple reason that he's a Senator, not a member of the House of Representatives. But yes, someone like Ted Cruz from the House would likely be more intransigent.
The Constitution makes no requirement that the Speaker has to be a member of the House. So Ted Cruz can be a candidate.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The Constitution makes no requirement that the Speaker has to be a member of the House. So Ted Cruz can be a candidate.
Please tell me you're kidding.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The Constitution makes no requirement that the Speaker has to be a member of the House. So Ted Cruz can be a candidate.
Please tell me you're kidding.
One of the many articles I read said that he was arrogant enough to stand. And people would vote for him.
Tubbs
[ 10. October 2013, 10:57: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I know this is a different constitution which I know next to nothing about, but how, please, can a person be the Speaker of a Chamber of which they are not a member? If they are not a member, they presumably aren't entitled to speak, be heard or take any part in its debates, all of which are prerequisites for being what we'd call the Speaker?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I know this is a different constitution which I know next to nothing about, but how, please, can a person be the Speaker of a Chamber of which they are not a member? If they are not a member, they presumably aren't entitled to speak, be heard or take any part in its debates, all of which are prerequisites for being what we'd call the Speaker?
There aren't a lot of rules about eligibility for Speaker of the House.
quote:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
So there's not requirement that the Speaker be a Representative any more than there's a requirement that the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives be a congressman. Presumably being elected Speaker would be sufficient to allow one to speak (though not to vote) in the House even if not a Congressman. Despite the fact that this is a technical possibility, the House has never elected a non-member to the post of Speaker.
There is, however, a rule that you can't hold positions in both chambers of Congress at the same time, so Ted Cruz could be Speaker of the House only if he were to resign from the Senate.
[ 10. October 2013, 14:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
But it's not as if the Constitution of the United States suddenly invented this thing called a 'Speaker' out of a vacuum. The point of the article is to identify who gets to decide who the Speaker is, not to suddenly redefine WHAT a Speaker is.
To me, the proposition that the Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the house is a bit like saying that a kid who's given the choice as to which of their toys they want to take to bed can march into their sister's room and pick a toy that is manifestly not in the class of 'my toys'. Or when asked to choose their preferred variety of apple says 'banana'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
But given that the duties of the Speaker of the House are primarily administrative, there's no technical reason a non-Congressman couldn't fulfill them.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not as if the Constitution of the United States suddenly invented this thing called a 'Speaker' out of a vacuum. The point of the article is to identify who gets to decide who the Speaker is, not to suddenly redefine WHAT a Speaker is.
As it applies to U.S. law, it is creating the position - the only applicable definition is to be found in the Constitution itself.
Given that an overriding principle of U.S. law is the concept that anything not prohibited is permitted, and lacking a prohibition for a non-Congressman to be named speaker, there is technically no reason anyone couldn't be named Speaker of the House.
That said, I wouldn't get too worried about it - it's never happened yet...
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Even if it was possible (besides the US Constitution, the House has its own rules of order), electing a senator Speaker of the House is incredibly unlikely. Not to worry, there are plenty of awful Tea Party shills in the House to fill the seat.
More likely candidates, assuming Democrats won't rally behind a moderate Republican, are the House majority leader Eric Cantor and the unrelentingly awful person Paul Ryan.
[ 10. October 2013, 14:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
As it applies to U.S. law, it is creating the position - the only applicable definition is to be found in the Constitution itself.
Where in the Constitution does it define the role of Speaker, though? I can't immediately see anything that tells you what it is the Speaker does. It assumes you already know.
If you're relying on the Constitution to create the role for you, the House of Representatives could just as easily pick a goat, put a sign around its neck saying 'Speaker', and leave it to chew hay in the corner. Because nothing in the text of the Constitution actually says 'the Speaker is the person in charge of running the House of Representatives'.
[ 10. October 2013, 14:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
As it applies to U.S. law, it is creating the position - the only applicable definition is to be found in the Constitution itself.
Where in the Constitution does it define the role of Speaker, though? I can't immediately see anything that tells you what it is the Speaker does. It assumes you already know.
It creates the role, but doesn't necessarily define it, true. Like much of the Constitution, it's open to interpretation. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
In this case, it's covered by Article I, Section 5:
quote:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
link to official text
The rules of the House lay out the Speaker's duties:
link
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're relying on the Constitution to create the role for you, the House of Representatives could just as easily pick a goat, put a sign around its neck saying 'Speaker', and leave it to chew hay in the corner.
It may well be an improvement over the current idiot. At least it would cry less on camera.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
News just in: Boehner has announced that the White House and Representatives are to go into talks and that, for the moment, some money is unfrozen to pay for those parts of the US Government that needs to pay its bills.
Lots of guff about the deficit from other Representatives - including the ludicrous posturing that they seek only to talk about reducing government debt which, as anyone who can read the figures knows, has been happening for the past 3 years.
QUESTION: What is wrong with Mr Boehner's hair? Looks about as real as on Barbie's Ken - weird.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
This is somewhat amusing. It's an account of the shutdown told using the tropes and clichés the media usually uses to describe events in foreign countries.
quote:
The typical signs of state failure aren’t evident on the streets of this sleepy capital city. Beret-wearing colonels have not yet taken to the airwaves to declare martial law. Money-changers are not yet buying stacks of useless greenbacks on the street.
But the pleasant autumn weather disguises a government teetering on the brink. Because, at midnight Monday night, the government of this intensely proud and nationalistic people will shut down, a drastic sign of political dysfunction in this moribund republic.
The capital’s rival clans find themselves at an impasse, unable to agree on a measure that will allow the American state to carry out its most basic functions. While the factions have come close to such a shutdown before, opponents of President Barack Obama’s embattled regime now appear prepared to allow the government to be shuttered over opposition to a controversial plan intended to bring the nation’s health care system in line with international standards.
I particularly like the way the author felt the need to mention the nation's "vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" towards the end, despite not being relevant to anything else in the article.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
An important thing to keep in mind about the speaker: if anything happens to the president or vice-president, s/he becomes president.
I don't like Boehner. But if he left, we might well have a Tea Party member two heartbeats from the presidency.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Of course, if the House chose to put Democrat Nancy Pelosi back in the job, I could live with it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
An important thing to keep in mind about the speaker: if anything happens to the president or vice-president, s/he becomes president.
I think you mean "if anything happens to the president and vice-president", and does so in a short enough timeframe that a new vice-president cannot be appointed (cf. Ford, Gerald).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Hey, I have an idea as to how our non-American compatriots can help-- have your legislators offer to reduce a percentage of whatever debt we owe your country if Congress restores the single payer option.
I bet the current budget would go through like grain through a goose.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Hey, I have an idea as to how our non-American compatriots can help-- have your legislators offer to reduce a percentage of whatever debt we owe your country if Congress restores the single payer option.
They're just numbers in the ether anyway.
Let every country write of each other's debts and all begin again with a clean slate.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
See, that's what "Jubilee" used to be... But I think we have already had that discussion, sorry.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Hey, I have an idea as to how our non-American compatriots can help-- have your legislators offer to reduce a percentage of whatever debt we owe your country if Congress restores the single payer option.
I bet the current budget would go through like grain through a goose.
I think you're making the mistake of believing that U.S. "budget hawks" actually care about the national debt. They don't. It's just an excuse they use to gut the social insurance programs they've always hated. In other words, you're trying to trade them something they don't care about (lower debt) in exchange for them doing something they hate (start a new social insurance program).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let every country write of each other's debts and all begin again with a clean slate.
I was under the impression that the majority of government debt was owned by individuals and companies, not by other governments.
How much "foreign company" differs from "foreign government" depends on the countries involved....
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Hey, I have an idea as to how our non-American compatriots can help-- have your legislators offer to reduce a percentage of whatever debt we owe your country if Congress restores the single payer option.
I bet the current budget would go through like grain through a goose.
I think you're making the mistake of believing that U.S. "budget hawks" actually care about the national debt. They don't. It's just an excuse they use to gut the social insurance programs they've always hated. In other words, you're trying to trade them something they don't care about (lower debt) in exchange for them doing something they hate (start a new social insurance program).
No, I am suggesting their bluff be called. That's why I made the post-script about the likelihood that the current budget would suddenly become acceptable under those circumstances.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I was under the impression that the majority of government debt was owned by individuals and companies, not by other governments.
How much "foreign company" differs from "foreign government" depends on the countries involved....
According to the U.S. Treasury Department, as of July 2013 US$5.6 trillion of U.S. government debt is held by foreign investors, of which US$4.0 trillion is held by official foreign institutions, like governments or central banks. So a little over 70% of foreign-held U.S. debt is in the hands of official foreign institutions, although this only represents about a third of total U.S. government debt (excluding U.S. intragovernmental holdings).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is somewhat amusing. ....
Croesus, it might hit somewhat harder if - joking aside - a few more people in the US realised quite how near that is to current perceptions of the crisis as it appears to many in the rest of the world.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Why exclude intragovernmental holdings? I think it is a very important and salient point how much of the "debt" is actually owed to the Social Security Administration.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why exclude intragovernmental holdings? I think it is a very important and salient point how much of the "debt" is actually owed to the Social Security Administration.
Absolutely. The main source of income for a majority of my clients is Social Security Disability. Since they either can't work at all, or can't earn enough at what little work they get to keep body & soul together under a reasonably leak-proof roof, what are they supposed to do when the trust fund runs out?
We already routinely deny disability to nearly everyone who applies, despite the painfully obvious legitimacy of many, if not most, of these claims.
It can take years and multiple appeals to get approval -- and meanwhile, claimants are deemed ineligible for other kinds of aid.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why exclude intragovernmental holdings? I think it is a very important and salient point how much of the "debt" is actually owed to the Social Security Administration.
Because it's both a debt and an asset. I'm not saying it doesn't count, just that it should be accounted separately.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
An important thing to keep in mind about the speaker: if anything happens to the president or vice-president, s/he becomes president.
I think you mean "if anything happens to the president and vice-president", and does so in a short enough timeframe that a new vice-president cannot be appointed (cf. Ford, Gerald).
Yes, sorry. Typo.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
An important thing to keep in mind about the speaker: if anything happens to the president or vice-president, s/he becomes president.
Would they have to resign from the House of Representatives if that happened? Or is someone allowed to be both President and a Representative?
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
An important thing to keep in mind about the speaker: if anything happens to the president or vice-president, s/he becomes president.
Would they have to resign from the House of Representatives if that happened? Or is someone allowed to be both President and a Representative?
You're only only allowed to have one position within the U.S. Government, so yes, resignation from the House would be required. You can't be both President and a member of Congress.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frankenstein
Shipmate
# 16198
|
Posted
Are these people complete prats?
Yes, next question please.
--------------------
It is better to travel in hope than to arrive?
Posts: 267 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Well, we figured out why relentlessly awful person Paul Ryan has been so quiet during this affair. So he could swoop in and save the day for the republicans. Apparently he and President Obama had something of a breakthrough last night.
I got another 100 moneys that he ends up the next speaker of the house.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Actually, I'd bet, if I were a betting person, that the next Speaker of the House will be a Democrat.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
If you're so sure, then put up your hundred moneys.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Sorry, I don't have a spare hundred moneys. If I had, it would be in the form of U.S. pennies.
And, as already mentioned, I'm not a betting person. But I do think the Tea Party has shot the Republicans in the foot.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
What? You don't have 100 funbucks for such a sure bet? Not even 100 simoleans?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Actually, I'd bet, if I were a betting person, that the next Speaker of the House will be a Democrat.
Much as this seems to be a lovely thought, that would mean suffering thru the current oddly orange-tinted crybaby-throwing-a-tantrum speaker for another year until the midterms and honestly, we cannot-- cannot!-- endure another year of this prat.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I suppose the democrats might pick up a few seats in 2014, but probably not enough to take control of the house. It'll be the few moderate republicans that actually suffer the effects of the extremists' actions.
[ 11. October 2013, 16:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
Crœsos said
quote:
You're only only allowed to have one position within the U.S. Government
Unless you are the Vice President, who is also the President of the Senate and can cast tie-breaking votes.
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The Dems only need 17 more seats.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
You'd almost think the Koch brothers were politicians, given their ability to ignore inconvenient stuff they've already said:
Koch brothers deny involvement in shutdown
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
For those of us who grew fond of Nate Silver and his 538 blog during the last presidential convention, he has a column at www.grantland.com about the current congressional state of affairs.
Not a lot of polling predictions or conclusions, but worth a read.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Agreed. The observations over House of Representatives elections (the structural difficulties faced by the Democrats) are not new, but this embedded link in the Silver article makes disturbing reading for anyone interested in fair elections.
The prattish and increasingly polarised behaviour seems to be a consequence of the extent to which the House has become a prisoner of its own built-in electoral bias. Viewed from this side of the pond, there is a cast iron case for electoral reform, but in order to achieve that bipartisan support would be required. At present there seems absolute no chance of that happening.
Elections to the House are structurally biased and the beneficiaries know that. The corollary (that in Presidential elections the Electoral College is now also structurally biased in favour of the Democratic candidates) came out pretty clearly in Silver's illuminating 538 columns in 2012. Maybe there is some kind of "quid pro quo" in that which might have some attractions for the less partisan in the Democrats and GOP?
Would electoral reform deal with the prattish tendencies? I think it might help. The remarkably adversarial nature of US politics at present makes political co-operation at crisis times pretty hard to achieve. Warm words about working together in the interests of all don't seem to have much impact on the built in "win/lose" tendencies.
[ 12. October 2013, 06:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Even if the Republicans do lose some votes in the short term, I suspect that a significant proportion of the US public will just take the shutdown crisis as still further evidence that nothing ever gets done in Washington, politics is a waste of time, and so on.
This kind of disgust leads to disengagement from politics and undermines the efforts of those who think that government can be an instrument of social change.
The ultimate beneficiaries of such disillusion are of, course, conservatives. One might compare the short and long term consequences of Watergate.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Barnabas62
There may well be bias in the electoral system of the US, but don't forget the skewed numbers in the UK; averaging out voters by numbers of constituencies you get the following
- 533 English constituencies average = 72522 voters
- 59 Scottish constituencies average = 66590 voters
- 40 Welsh constituencies average = 57040 voters
- 18 Northern Irish constituencies average = 66145 voters
When it comes to representation at regional/national (as opposed to British) level the results are even more skewed:
- 0 English constituencies because no English assembly or Parliament
- 129 MSPs average = 30457 per member
- 60 Welsh AMs average = 38027 per member
- 108 Northern Irish MAs average = 11024 per member
And all of this before we get onto the subject of the bias towards traditional Labour seats.
And if you think this only affects the LibDems, think again: in 2005 Tony Blair won a parliamentary majority of 60 despite Labour not even polling the most votes (Labour 35.4% Conservative 35.7%). The poor old LibDems get hammered time and time again - in 2005 they polled 23% of the vote but got only 9% of the seats.
The USA may have gerrymandering in the way districts are parcelled out House representation but the UK shouldn't feel too smug when our own system is so deeply flawed.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There may well be bias in the electoral system of the US, but don't forget the skewed numbers in the UK; averaging out voters by numbers of constituencies you get the following
- 533 English constituencies average = 72522 voters
- 59 Scottish constituencies average = 66590 voters
- 40 Welsh constituencies average = 57040 voters
- 18 Northern Irish constituencies average = 66145 voters
The variation there is a little high, yes.
quote:
When it comes to representation at regional/national (as opposed to British) level the results are even more skewed:
- 0 English constituencies because no English assembly or Parliament
- 129 MSPs average = 30457 per member
- 60 Welsh AMs average = 38027 per member
- 108 Northern Irish MAs average = 11024 per member
This comparison is utterly, utterly meaningless. You might as well insist that the population size of electorates for the French Parliament has to match the population size of electorates for the Slovenian one.
quote:
And if you think this only affects the LibDems, think again: in 2005 Tony Blair won a parliamentary majority of 60 despite Labour not even polling the most votes (Labour 35.4% Conservative 35.7%). The poor old LibDems get hammered time and time again - in 2005 they polled 23% of the vote but got only 9% of the seats.
That's what you get for keeping first-past-the-post voting.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This comparison is utterly, utterly meaningless. You might as well insist that the population size of electorates for the French Parliament has to match the population size of electorates for the Slovenian one.
Wrong, Orfeo, completely wrong.
1. France and Slovenia are not different parts of the same country.
2. The Union Parliament is supposed to be representative of all four countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
L'Organist has cited figures which if correct, make it clear that some (Wales and Scotland) are more represented than others.
3. There is a good argument (known as the West Lothian question) that those parts of the country that have devolved assemblies should in return have less representation in the Union Parliament which for England has to cover what for the others are devolved matters. The figures L'Organist has cited demonstrate that the electoral mathematics in the UK are skewed the opposite way. So England and English electors suffer from a pronounced democratic deficit in comparison with the other three bits.
4. So far as the UK constitution is concerned, this is important. L'Organist is right, and, trying to put this politely, you are not. However, if in stead, you had that as far as this thread is concerned, it is a complete and utter tangent, I couldn't do anything other than agree completely.
[ 12. October 2013, 16:53: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
